34 career comebacks sounds like a lot until you find out that it was out of 100 attempts. More than twice as many attempts as the next guy with 38 comebacks.

By your own logic, if they trail 42-10 at the start of the 4th quarter, and lose 42-41, that's a failure to come back despite putting up 31 in the quarter. THAT's why I said you statistics are meaningless. I've watched a lot of football since I started paying attention to it and specifically a lot of Packer games dating back to the days when John Hadl was thought to be an upgrade, and never saw anyone who could pull a victory out of nowhere like that. His own coach would have said the same things I have, and announcer after announcer DID say it.

It's not hard to find statistics to support your case, especially when they are really vague. Like look at the Packers record before his tenure and immediately after, when he didn't have an experienced A-Rod to take his place, and the team record is pretty abysmal. Is that all to his credit? Of course not, so I am not cherry picking it as a vague stat to support my opinion, and unlike you, I don't allow a (clear, in your case) dislike for Favre to color my judgment about his play, despite the fact that I like and respect him no more than you do.

By your own logic, if they trail 42-10 at the start of the 4th quarter, and lose 42-41, that's a failure to come back despite putting up 31 in the quarter. THAT's why I said you statistics are meaningless. I've watched a lot of football since I started paying attention to it and specifically a lot of Packer games dating back to the days when John Hadl was thought to be an upgrade, and never saw anyone who could pull a victory out of nowhere like that. His own coach would have said the same things I have, and announcer after announcer DID say it.

It's not hard to find statistics to support your case, especially when they are really vague. Like look at the Packers record before his tenure and immediately after, when he didn't have an experienced A-Rod to take his place, and the team record is pretty abysmal. Is that all to his credit? Of course not, so I am not cherry picking it as a vague stat to support my opinion, and unlike you, I don't allow a (clear, in your case) dislike for Favre to color my judgment about his play, despite the fact that I like and respect him no more than you do.

I don't find stats. I find out why.

Huge difference.

They are not vague or obscure cherry picked stats. Favre failed 69 times in come backs opportunities and was successful 30 times. You said that he was clutch. Brady is successful over 70 % of the time. Eli, who is mediocre is about 45% successful.

If you say Favre pulled out more wins than he choked away, fine. Support your argument.

Prove it.

You will have to forgive me for being a cynic, but I can't accept an eye test. I can't accept public opinion or a guess based on media hype. I also can't accept hypothetical arguments or conjecture about what someone's opinion might have been. Specially when his coach would have said "It was a bitch to get him to stay in control in the clutch."

I will say for most under rated I would have to go with"You may beat our Pack but you won't lick our Dickey" Lynn Dickey was a good qb and he was all we had back in the 80's.

Over rated is a hard one so i will just throw this out there and say the wr corp the past few years. People keep saying they are the best in the league we can go 6 deep blah blah blah. But seriously were they that great I don't think so.

It's "corps", dumbass, you know how I hate that. I applauded you for the Lynn Dickey pick, not the wr corps thing. Teams run out of db's long before we run out of quality wide receivers/ TE's It's an UNDERRATED advantage. Way off-base on that one, imo.

I understand your premise. Herber was a better quarterback for his era than Favre was in his era. That’s a comparison, though. You may not mean to compare the two, but that’s doing it. It’s a flawed way of judging players, too. You’re clearly referencing some form of higher knowledge of stats. Regardless, your stats cannot account for every single variable. For example, it‘s easier to dominate in an average league than to dominate in a greater league. In addition, you seem to have views of your own. We all have our opinions, but stats should always be objective. I’m not sure that’s the case here.

I’ve actually heard this argument a lot since ‘09. It’s a nitpick if there ever was one. So the ’96 team was so dominating that they didn’t need Favre in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl. Never mind the fact that Favre was a big reason why they were winning in the 4th quarter.

All he did was account for three touchdowns, including two perfect throws to Andre Rison and Antonio Freeman. Other than that, you know, he didn’t do much of anything.

I do believe many people, including myself, share your frustration with the Favre apologists. However, there’s also the other side of the spectrum. The NFL Network segment and Herber > Favre represent that side, in my opinion.

Fine,

Then nobody can ever make a greatest all time list. Because the NFL is NEVER the same from decade to decade.

We can never compare QBs ever. That is evil and wrong.

The NFL Montana played in is significantly different from when Staubach played. Marino played in a different NFL than Brady played in. Then you can't say Favre was greatest ever. Because QBs now are putting up more than he put up per year on a regular basis.

The point was that Favre didn't have to step up with the ball in his hand and score or lose. Which was his big weakness in the post season. Which set him way behind Starr who was the greatest post season QB ever.

Not surprisingly, you completely missed the point of my post to fit your argument in some way. I'm well aware of what statistics mean. I did statistical analysis professionally for 4 years, although I don't really miss doing that as my 8-6 (who actually gets to work a 9-5 anyway? Damn public sector). I don't consider any difference between what statistics "say" and "mean" because it's one and the same to me, and any other intelligent inference maker. That's precisely why I mentioned needing to have "background knowledge of the situation" and "empirical experience." One must have a thorough understanding of the circumstances that brought about any statistic because that's important in explaining the context, relevance, and limitations of the inferences made. Stating that something is statically significant or that certain factors are correlated is great, but such a finding should always be explained in order to establish what it really means meaning. Without that, the raw numbers mean little to me, which was my point from the beginning. I assumed such was rhetorical, but obviously not. I didn't think I needed to spell everything out. I suppose some will take stats at face value without thinking of the context in which they were derived, but I think the majority know there is a much bigger story behind the numbers. I really don't make much a distinction there because I consider it a linear process. Understand what the statistics say and then understand what they mean and their limitations. Stopping short of that is just poor analysis.

This is very important when using statistics to support NFL arguments. One could point out that player A has/had better numbers in category X, Y, and Z, which he or she then uses as a justification that player A is/was better than player B. That almost always involves taking a big leap because doing so generalizes so many other influencing factors behind those stats that can never be truly resolved. It's just another example of the limitations of statistics, especially in sports. They're obviously a strong basis for arguments, but they are anything but definitive most of the time, and other things need to be considered. As a result, judgments are always going to be somewhat subjective. It's just the way it is, but it needs to be acknowledged when making such judgments. Of course, sports media doesn't need to acknowledge anything because their only goal is to draw viewers, ratings, etc. Objectivity or fairness isn't their concern at all. Those things don't pay the bills, so I can't blame them, I suppose. It always comes back to what pays.

You will have to forgive me for being a cynic, but I can't accept an eye test.

Here's the crux of it. I agree that an eye test is not even as scientific as what you are doing, but there is a reason for the term "lies, damned lies and statistics". It's because used in a vague way, they can be incredibly misleading, yet they still carry the weight of authority so people assume they are true. Here's an example, though not really applicable here but it illustrates the problem with statistics and how they are presented if vague.

Taste test....80% say no difference between A and B. 11% say A, 9% say B. Commercial? "91% say A as good or better than B"

True, but misleading. In Brady's 70% 4th quarter comeback success, what was the average margin of deficit? How many of those comebacks were spurred by defensive turnovers? I am not saying Favre was a better QB than Brady, nor better at comebacks, but knowing the team he had around him for most of his career, that Favre had a percentage just over half as good as Brady's in this regard is probably more significant. Brady has had a Super Bowl contending team around him every year and nearly for every snap he's ever taken. Not true of Favre. Both clearly made the people around them a lot better but on the whole Favre had less talent to work with, tougher division opponents and for a few years even inferior coaches.

Here's the crux of it. I agree that an eye test is not even as scientific as what you are doing, but there is a reason for the term "lies, damned lies and statistics". It's because used in a vague way, they can be incredibly misleading, yet they still carry the weight of authority so people assume they are true. Here's an example, though not really applicable here but it illustrates the problem with statistics and how they are presented if vague.

Taste test....80% say no difference between A and B. 11% say A, 9% say B. Commercial? "91% say A as good or better than B"

True, but misleading. In Brady's 70% 4th quarter comeback success, what was the average margin of deficit? How many of those comebacks were spurred by defensive turnovers? I am not saying Favre was a better QB than Brady, nor better at comebacks, but knowing the team he had around him for most of his career, that Favre had a percentage just over half as good as Brady's in this regard is probably more significant. Brady has had a Super Bowl contending team around him every year and nearly for every snap he's ever taken. Not true of Favre. Both clearly made the people around them a lot better but on the whole Favre had less talent to work with, tougher division opponents and for a few years even inferior coaches.

I just wish Favre had the luxury of offense lines the likes that Tom Brady has had. Or even better, Aaron Rodgers. As long as our defense was just average, there would be no way to stop Aaron Rodgers if he had a great offensive line. Too bad it doesn't appear like that's ever going to happen. Some of the protection Tom Brady has had, or even P. Manning in Denver last season is just . . . well amazing. At least as a Packer fan.

My statement stands...as a single player he had as much or more impact on his team's ability to win a game than anyone during his era and I include Elway and Marino in that statement.

Favre was almost as likely to turn the ball over as score when the game was not on the line.

When it was on the line, he was more likely to fail than he was to succeed. Look up every post season game and see how well he played.

In 9 of 10 playoff runs, Favre personally choked, played poorly or with time on the clock, the ball in his hands and within a score, He failed to generate a first down.

'93 playoff game against Dallas, 2 picks and a fumble lost.

'95 in the middle of a great NFC Championship game where the Packers were matching the Cowboys blow for blow, he was driving to take the lead back in the 4th quarter. He threw a bad pass into the chest of a DB who set up a score by the Cowboys. Giving them a 2 score lead. After which a suddenly ineffective Favre failed to complete a pass, then never got the ball back.

'98 playoff game against the 49er had a 79.7 rating with 57% completions and threw 2 picks in a 3 point loss.

'01 The 6 interception game vs the Rams, Favre threw 3 pick 6s and another one returned to inside the 5. Essentially giving the Rams the margin of victory by handing them 28 points.

'02 Packers first home playoff loss to the Falcons as Favre turned the game over in the second half with a pick and a lost fumble. He had 47.6% completions and a 54.4 rating

'03 The 4th and 26 game, Favre couldn't move the ball in spite of over 200 yards by the running backs, 7 sacks by the D and 2 forced turnovers. One more yard and the ball never goes back to McNabb. Ending in an OT pick.

'04 he threw 4 picks to the 8-8 MN Vikings and 54.4 rating

'07 Lame duck in the Giants game after a whole game of looking like an old man in the cold. 70.7 rating, 2 picks and 54.3% completions..

The '96 Super Bowl was pretty much 2 passes to WRs that ran about 80 yards after the catchs and then Favre getting nothing down field to his WRs after about 20 minutes into the game. He wasn't needed to step up because of the D and ST, so they won.

The '97 Super Bowl, Favre got the ball back with time and failed to complete a pass. I wouldn't say he lost the game, played poorly or anything other than he didn't step up like Starr would have.

His come from behind wins are way over stated. He had the most opportunities by a long shot. If he were just average at comebacks, he would easily lead the league. But since he was only about 30% successful, he actually blew more chances than he won. By a wide margin.

If he played in the '70s people wouldn't be excusing and glossing over Favres post season failures.

Here's the crux of it. I agree that an eye test is not even as scientific as what you are doing, but there is a reason for the term "lies, damned lies and statistics". It's because used in a vague way, they can be incredibly misleading, yet they still carry the weight of authority so people assume they are true. Here's an example, though not really applicable here but it illustrates the problem with statistics and how they are presented if vague.

Taste test....80% say no difference between A and B. 11% say A, 9% say B. Commercial? "91% say A as good or better than B"

True, but misleading. In Brady's 70% 4th quarter comeback success, what was the average margin of deficit? How many of those comebacks were spurred by defensive turnovers? I am not saying Favre was a better QB than Brady, nor better at comebacks, but knowing the team he had around him for most of his career, that Favre had a percentage just over half as good as Brady's in this regard is probably more significant. Brady has had a Super Bowl contending team around him every year and nearly for every snap he's ever taken. Not true of Favre. Both clearly made the people around them a lot better but on the whole Favre had less talent to work with, tougher division opponents and for a few years even inferior coaches.

And the eye test, hypothetical illustrations, conjectured opinions of people you don't know and media hype is even less credible than that taste test. Easier to manipulate and misrepresent. Less honest and completely unprovable.

Stats aren't perfect, but they are better than what you have used for proof by several orders of magnitude.

I just wish Favre had the luxury of offense lines the likes that Tom Brady has had. Or even better, Aaron Rodgers. As long as our defense was just average, there would be no way to stop Aaron Rodgers if he had a great offensive line. Too bad it doesn't appear like that's ever going to happen. Some of the protection Tom Brady has had, or even P. Manning in Denver last season is just . . . well amazing. At least as a Packer fan.

You mean like that line Favre had in '03 that got the backs 250 rushing yards and allowed 1 sack in the playoff game against Philly. When Favre put up an 82.4 rating and threw up the pick in OT.

By your own logic, if they trail 42-10 at the start of the 4th quarter, and lose 42-41, that's a failure to come back despite putting up 31 in the quarter. THAT's why I said you statistics are meaningless. I've watched a lot of football since I started paying attention to it and specifically a lot of Packer games dating back to the days when John Hadl was thought to be an upgrade, and never saw anyone who could pull a victory out of nowhere like that. His own coach would have said the same things I have, and announcer after announcer DID say it.

It's not hard to find statistics to support your case, especially when they are really vague. Like look at the Packers record before his tenure and immediately after, when he didn't have an experienced A-Rod to take his place, and the team record is pretty abysmal. Is that all to his credit? Of course not, so I am not cherry picking it as a vague stat to support my opinion, and unlike you, I don't allow a (clear, in your case) dislike for Favre to color my judgment about his play, despite the fact that I like and respect him no more than you do.

I am not the one using a single hypothetical situation to support an argument against facts.

In all of his comeback attempts, Favre really was successful 30% of the time. Nothing vague about it. It was and is a direct counter to your opinion that Favre stepped up when it mattered. That isn't a cherry picked either because it was your point to say he was MORE successful than he was guilty of failure. Unlike your cherry picked vague hypothetical situation you used to dispute a real concrete, to the point fact that he wasn't.

Before Favre and during his first few years there was not much difference. Dickey led a decent offense and the D sucked. Majkowski lead the Packers to a 10-6 record his only heathy full year. Favre led the Packers to three consecutive 9-7 records until he had the best D in the league.

That myth that Favre is the reason they started winning is another example of Favre being over rated. What did Favre do with the Packers after Holmgren? He had 4 years with ratings in the 70s, 1 with a rating in the 80s and 4 with ratings in the 90s. He was pretty average.

Harlan, Wolf and Holmgren changed the fortunes of the Packers. Not Favre.

He was an improvement. Mostly because he was healthy. He was only about a 2.5 increase over Dickey's career as a Packer and Majkowski couldn't stay healthy.

Personally, I don't give a QB credit for wins. To paraphrase the greatest coach in the history of the game. Teams win, QBs play. They either play well or they don't.

Favre played like the 46th best QB ever. That was pretty good. But not as great as everyone likes to say.

There are too many moving parts to sports, especially the NFL, to simply look at a piece of paper and definitively conclude player A is superior to player B. That’s why we watch the games.

For example, fourth quarter comebacks are a theme in your arguments, yet you leave out the fact that Favre gave Green Bay the lead with two minutes remaining at San Francisco in ‘98. The defense couldn’t stop the 49ers’ offense twice (Jerry Rice fumbled).

Another issue in your analysis is your diminishing the play of quarters 1-3 to support your argument that Favre didn’t have as much to do with the Super Bowl win. Those quarters happened. They are apart of history, specifically, Packer history. Would Favre’s darts to Rison and Freeman mean more in the 4th quarter? The answer is no. They would’ve meant six points in quarter one and six points in quarter four. However, you feel the need to emphasis that particular 15 minutes rather than the first 45 minutes.

What I see is somebody putting in place their own guidelines to get the predetermined result they want. There’s no factual account here, but rather a flawed narrative of the bigger picture. There’s a reason coaches, players, and scouts, actually watch (perhaps study is a better word) film and not rely on stats on a page sheet.

There are too many moving parts to sports, especially the NFL, to simply look at a piece of paper and definitively conclude player A is superior to player B. That’s why we watch the games.

For example, fourth quarter comebacks are a theme in your arguments, yet you leave out the fact that Favre gave Green Bay the lead with two minutes remaining at San Francisco in ‘98. The defense couldn’t stop the 49ers’ offense twice (Jerry Rice fumbled).

Another issue in your analysis is your diminishing the play of quarters 1-3 to support your argument that Favre didn’t have as much to do with the Super Bowl win. Those quarters happened. They are apart of history, specifically, Packer history. Would Favre’s darts to Rison and Freeman mean more in the 4th quarter? The answer is no. They would’ve meant six points in quarter one and six points in quarter four. However, you feel the need to emphasis that particular 15 minutes rather than the first 45 minutes.

What I see is somebody putting in place their own guidelines to get the predetermined result they want. There’s no factual account here, but rather a flawed narrative of the bigger picture. There’s a reason coaches, players, and scouts, actually watch (perhaps study is a better word) film and not rely on stats on a page sheet.

Again, using one game to prove or disprove a trend.

Sure, that game may have been an exception. Or Favre may had another shot at it but went 0-4 and turned the ball over on downs. Thay may not have happene that game, but it did in the '97 super bowl.

But the point that was made is, Favre led the Packers to a win more times than not when he had the ball in his hand and it was score or go home. 30 out of 100 is a pretty solid trend where an exception or two doesn't disprove it.

His late game heroics are over stated. Yes it matters to THEIR point that Favre threw those passes in the first half and not when playing from behind in the 4th because it doesn't support their argument.

2 good TD passes that had 80 combined YAC is not a great game. That is not a "carry the team" kind of performance. There is no way that you can credtit Favre with winning that game with performances the ST and D put up. The best you can say about Favre is that he didn't choke. One of the times he listened to Holmgren and threw it away rather than make a mistake.

Favre was almost as likely to turn the ball over as score when the game was not on the line.

When it was on the line, he was more likely to fail than he was to succeed. Look up every post season game and see how well he played.

In 9 of 10 playoff runs, Favre personally choked, played poorly or with time on the clock, the ball in his hands and within a score, He failed to generate a first down.

'93 playoff game against Dallas, 2 picks and a fumble lost.

'95 in the middle of a great NFC Championship game where the Packers were matching the Cowboys blow for blow, he was driving to take the lead back in the 4th quarter. He threw a bad pass into the chest of a DB who set up a score by the Cowboys. Giving them a 2 score lead. After which a suddenly ineffective Favre failed to complete a pass, then never got the ball back.

'98 playoff game against the 49er had a 79.7 rating with 57% completions and threw 2 picks in a 3 point loss.

'01 The 6 interception game vs the Rams, Favre threw 3 pick 6s and another one returned to inside the 5. Essentially giving the Rams the margin of victory by handing them 28 points.

'02 Packers first home playoff loss to the Falcons as Favre turned the game over in the second half with a pick and a lost fumble. He had 47.6% completions and a 54.4 rating

'03 The 4th and 26 game, Favre couldn't move the ball in spite of over 200 yards by the running backs, 7 sacks by the D and 2 forced turnovers. One more yard and the ball never goes back to McNabb. Ending in an OT pick.

'04 he threw 4 picks to the 8-8 MN Vikings and 54.4 rating

'07 Lame duck in the Giants game after a whole game of looking like an old man in the cold. 70.7 rating, 2 picks and 54.3% completions..

The '96 Super Bowl was pretty much 2 passes to WRs that ran about 80 yards after the catchs and then Favre getting nothing down field to his WRs after about 20 minutes into the game. He wasn't needed to step up because of the D and ST, so they won.

The '97 Super Bowl, Favre got the ball back with time and failed to complete a pass. I wouldn't say he lost the game, played poorly or anything other than he didn't step up like Starr would have.

His come from behind wins are way over stated. He had the most opportunities by a long shot. If he were just average at comebacks, he would easily lead the league. But since he was only about 30% successful, he actually blew more chances than he won. By a wide margin.

If he played in the '70s people wouldn't be excusing and glossing over Favres post season failures.

Dex I know what you re trying to say. But those loses were not were not completely Favres' fault. I won''t go through the whole list but if I recall the 2001 game in St Louis the Packers were underdogs. None of us knows what their game plan was but it was clear Brett was trying to throw the team on his shoulders and carry them to victory. The line was porous and favre was under pressure the whole game. He certainly was forcing passes. Way too many times but if we were able to get on honest answer from him he would tell us that taking chances would be the only way to win that game.

The next year in 2002 the team was pretty beat up by the end of the season. Green was the leading rusher with only 34 yards. That indicates issues beyond just the qb.

And the 4th and 26 Phillie game was more a defensive failure than a Favre loss.

Did Brett push it more than he should? Certainly. That was a part of his mantra. It worked some times and didn't work other times. Thing is if the team is trailing late int e game the opponent expects your team to throw the ball and they have a defense that is designed to prevent your success.

There are too many moving parts to sports, especially the NFL, to simply look at a piece of paper and definitively conclude player A is superior to player B. That’s why we watch the games.

What I see is somebody putting in place their own guidelines to get the predetermined result they want. There’s no factual account here, but rather a flawed narrative of the bigger picture. There’s a reason coaches, players, and scouts, actually watch (perhaps study is a better word) film and not rely on stats on a page sheet.

OK, give me your unbiased rating of Otto Graham. Without using stats.

If anyone is going to say Favre is greatest all time, all time goes a long way back.

How does Favre stack up against Tarkenton? Johnny U? Kenny Anderson?

How does John Elway stack up against Joe Namath or Sonny Jergenson?

Since you didn't watch every QB take every snap in every game since 1920, comparing QBs cannot be done without stats unless you resort to opinions that you heard from someone else. So calling any QB great without stats is a BS waste of time. Because you really can't compare them without stats.

I am really offended you would say I am using stats to support a predetermined result.

The ranking system I use has a lot of results I don't like. Putting a Bears QB at all time greatest is not something I would aim for because I don't like the Bears. Ranking Staubach ahead of Starr is pretty offensive because I hate the Cowboys.

But the stats are what they are. They can't be biased, subject to hype or fooled. They are more honest than people's perceptions.

Dex I know what you re trying to say. But those loses were not were not completely Favres' fault. I won''t go through the whole list but if I recall the 2001 game in St Louis the Packers were underdogs. None of us knows what their game plan was but it was clear Brett was trying to throw the team on his shoulders and carry them to victory. The line was porous and favre was under pressure the whole game. He certainly was forcing passes. Way too many times but if we were able to get on honest answer from him he would tell us that taking chances would be the only way to win that game.

The next year in 2002 the team was pretty beat up by the end of the season. Green was the leading rusher with only 34 yards. That indicates issues beyond just the qb.

And the 4th and 26 Phillie game was more a defensive failure than a Favre loss.

Did Brett push it more than he should? Certainly. That was a part of his mantra. It worked some times and didn't work other times. Thing is if the team is trailing late int e game the opponent expects your team to throw the ball and they have a defense that is designed to prevent your success.

I didn't say it was Favre's fault that they lost.

The losses are the teams. Not the QBs.

To paraphrase Lombardi, Teams win, QBs play. They play good or they don't.

The point was that 9 of 10 post seasons ended with Favre playing poorly, choking at the last minute or with the ball in his hands, time on the clock and it is win or go home, he failed to get a first down. I am talking about how he played. Not if they won or not.

If the running backs (who had put up about 207 yards) had gotten 1 more yards, McNabb doesn't get the ball back. If the D that held the Phily RBs to 28 yards, had 7 sacks, 2 turnovers and held McNabb to a 53.7 rating got to him 1 more time, he doesn't make that throw. Or if Favre is better than 15 of 28 for 180 yards 2 TDs and a pick, maybe they win the game.

I would say that Favre played worse than the D or the running game. He is responsible for that AND the pick.

If anyone is going to say Favre is greatest all time, all time goes a long way back.

How does Favre stack up against Tarkenton? Johnny U? Kenny Anderson?

How does John Elway stack up against Joe Namath or Sonny Jergenson?

Since you didn't watch every QB take every snap in every game since 1920, comparing QBs cannot be done without stats unless you resort to opinions that you heard from someone else. So calling any QB great without stats is a BS waste of time. Because you really can't compare them without stats.

I am really offended you would say I am using stats to support a predetermined result.

The ranking system I use has a lot of results I don't like. Putting a Bears QB at all time greatest is not something I would aim for because I don't like the Bears. Ranking Staubach ahead of Starr is pretty offensive because I hate the Cowboys.

But the stats are what they are. They can't be biased, subject to hype or fooled. They are more honest than people's perceptions.

OK, I'll bite since I seem to be the primary one saying Favre is the greatest of all time. Anything I say is prefaced by the fact it's kinda an educated gut feeling - I am too lazy to dig and get exact stats, etc.

I consider Tarkenton to be very high on the list of all time greats, along with Dan Marino. As for Otto Graham, he is at the outer limit of my memory - he was at the end of his career when I was first old enough to be conscious of football. My impression of Graham, though, is that his career didn't last all that long - he was a truly outstanding QB, but much like Namath, didn't pass the test of longevity. Staubach also was really excellent, but had a relatively short career.

Bart Starr deserves special recognition, but as much as I respect one of my childhood heroes, consideration of him is tempered slightly by the fact that he had more talent surrounding him than just about anybody ever, and the fact that in his time "playoffs" consisted of one game, then two when the Super Bowl era began.

It has always been my stance that "Gunslinger" should be an insult to a QB.

The only year we won the super bowl with Favre is when Holmgren had him under control.

His first 3 years, we were 9-7.

When Holmgren got through to him, he had his best season as a Packer in '95.

We should have won the super bowl that year, but Favre went all Gunslinger in the NFCCG and screwed it up.

In a great seesaw battle against Dallas, we had the lead, they came back, Favre was driving and looking unstoppable. Then he goes all gunslingery and throws a pick into one of the Dallas defenders chest. After that, he was unable to recover and didn't complete another pass.

In '96 he finally got it. They didn't put the ball in his hand to win it all. They put it in Reggie's. I don't think people give enough credit to that D. They were 0.75 points per game behind the '85 Bears. 12 points in the regular season. At a time when it was easier to throw and the average passer rating for the NFL was higher. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl with a D that wasn't as good as the '96 Packers' D.

After Holmgren left with his 9-5 post season record, the Gunslinger was back and we were 3-5 in the post season.

If it were Favre who was so great and saved us from the mediocrity of the '80s, why couldn't he play that well in years after Holmgren left. We had Shermans line protecting him and giving us the Packers all time leading rusher. The D was also really good at times. 5 times they were top 10 and 3 times they were top 5.

After Holmgren left, Favre had 4 years with ratings in the 70s. They were 75, 78, 71 and 73. He had one 85.6 and 4 years rated in the 90s. they were 95.7, 94.1, 92.4 and 90.4. So Favre was essentially average in the 9 years after Holmgren left. Mostly because of the 193 INTs.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.